I thought this would be a way to keep updated on an area of research changing so quickly that publications are often incomplete by the time they reach the bookstores. But in the midst of these changes is a theme that most readers of "Time" and "Newsweek" are aware of: genes and environment are inseparable, interdependent features of living organisms.

This is a sort of underlying, default category of many arguments re: morality and theology, and so the psycho-biological aspects can inform us. Here are some links, some of which are taken from the thread "Stem Cell Research." The first set of links shows the way researches have been able to measure how a mother's early life experience impacts the caregiving of her children in terms of their attachment status e.g, secure, insecure, avoidant, fearful, preoccupied, and how these enduring affects/patterns of relatedness are internalized, interact with temperament, and are carried forward into adolescense and adult life.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...t&list_uids=14982680

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...t&list_uids=12959491

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...t&list_uids=12537851

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...t&list_uids=15061308


The second set of links shows, in an animal model, how these interactions between mother and child might be organized biologically via the environmental signalling:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/en...ed&from_uid=15220929

I look forward to reading up on this some more, w.c. Some of it sounds neo-Lamarckian. We've discussed some of this briefly by phone and I found it fascinating. Thanks for starting the thread and pointing us to those links.

http://www.mindandlife.org/conf04.html


Interesting link exploring the way meditation may shape the nervous system and the genome.

quote:

Neuroscience and psychological research over the past decade on this topic has burgeoned and is leading to new insights about the many ways in which the brain, behavior and experience change in response to experience. This basic issue is being studied at many different levels, in different species, and on different time scales. Yet all of the work invariably leads to the conclusion that the brain is not static but rather is dynamically changing and undergoes such changes throughout one's entire life.

And, in my opinion, this would practically scream for the consideration of the importance of negative or positive feedback loops as a dynamic. Small changes can bring forth other small changes which then reinforce each other and create a powerful feedback loop.

quote:

Other studies at the molecular level reveal how the chemistry of DNA can be changed by experience in ways that affect the expression of our genes. Moreover, such effects on the chemistry of DNA can be produced by social experience, which in turn modifies gene expression in ways that can persist for the duration of a lifetime. These findings have radical implications for conceptualizing the dynamic interplay between nature and nurture.

One of the books I'm reading now, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, (and this is a tough, slow read) pretty much says that those who view the human being as a blank slate, empty at-birth, and as a completely pliable medium always lead us into mischief because this idea simply runs counter to the truth. (Think of those bone-to-pick nutty scientists who insist little boys and little girls are no different and thus cause all kinds of grief. And communism is a "blank slate" philosophy because it denies the different abilities we all have and are basic motivations for freedom and to profit from our own hard work). Therefore I say watch for this kind of science to be misused in social and political theory. The implications are that we might be far more pliable than once thought.

That's interesting stuff, WC.

Yes. And Pinker is one of those scientists who first dismissed the possibility of epigenetic influences, and is now somewhat recanting on his earlier position. I'd recommend David Moore's book "The Dependent Gene" as a counterbalance to Pinker.

Yes. And Pinker is one of those scientists who first dismissed the possibility of epigenetic influences, and is now somewhat recanting on his earlier position. I'd recommend David Moore's book "The Dependent Gene" as a counterbalance to Pinker.

Thanks, WC. I'll keep that book in mind. It might indeed be a good counter-balance to The Blank Slate although I don�t expect this book to get too far off the beaten track as it was recommended by Thomas Sowell with these comments:

quote:

Perhaps the book from this year that will be longest remembered in the years ahead is "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" by best-selling author Steven Pinker, who is also a professor of neurosciences at MIT. It is a huge book on a huge subject.

When David Hume wrote a treatise on human nature two centuries ago, he did not have to argue that there was such a thing as human nature because everyone took that for granted. But in the intervening time, and especially in our own times, much of the intelligentsia has argued that the human mind begins as a blank slate -- which is to say, that there is no such thing as human nature.

That assumption is crucial to all sorts of attempts to mold and control others. But Pinker pulls the rug out from under this assumption, in a way that is often both profound and amusing. "The Blank Slate" is a tour de force. Where else can you find an analysis of the brain along with a discussion of the philosophy of Hobbes and the cartoons of Calvin and Hobbes?

Still, it�s quite interesting to learn that Pinker dismissed the possibility of epigenetic influences. I wonder if this was likely because of what so easily occurred to me at first glance: it tends to somewhat support the blank slate idea.

Brad:

You may find that Pinker doesn't, to the degree I suggested, dismiss epigenetics, but there is one pivotal issue which I've alluded to earlier that would probably take him much further in recognizing the role of environmental signalling that he'd be prone to explore, at least based upon his bias of mostly gene-driven behavior.

Here's a link to some articles discussing Pinker and his naysayers, although most of these are weighted in favor of Pinker:

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/GDBlankLloyd1.html

And here are two of those articles that come much closer to capturing the interdependent relationship of genes and environment, even though bio-medical research is very much rooted in old reductionistic notions that have the Human Genome Project as their champion:

http://www.dylan.org.uk/Ridley.htm
http://enjoyment.independent.c...ory.jsp?story=390622

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Arch...4273,4134598,00.html

Consider this excerpt from this review of Matt Ridley's book "Nature via Nurture":

http://education.guardian.co.u...10595,926347,00.html

Well, that link isn't making the trip from Shalom, for some reason, so here's the entire article:

______________________________________________

You're mostly a monkey

Robin McKie is impressed by Nature via Nurture, Matt Ridley's eloquent explanation of how we can be so different from other primates despite sharing 99% of their genetic material

Sunday March 30, 2003
The Observer

Nature via Nurture
by Matt Ridley
Fourth Estate, �18.99, pp328

Try this little literary exercise. Take the opening paragraphs of David Copperfield and compare them with those of The Catcher in the Rye. Note the similarities, some of which are intentional - for the latter's introduction was intended to mirror the former's. 'All that David Copperfield crap... I don't feel like going into it,' writes J.D. Salinger at one point.

Both authors use the same few thousand words, roughly speaking. 'There are words that Salinger uses but not Dickens, like elevator and crap,' says evolution expert Matt Ridley. 'There are words that Dickens uses but not Salinger, like caul and pettish. But they will be few compared with words they share.'

The lexical concordance between the two books is more than 90 per cent, Ridley calculates, though the two works are not remotely similar: the former is one of the Victorian era's greatest sagas, the latter a brilliant, sardonic tale of twentieth-century teenage angst. Very different works can clearly be created from identical materials.

Which takes us, logically, to the chimpanzee. Scientists have recently shown these animals share all but a handful of the 30,000 genes that combine to create a human being. Yet the two species are not alike, despite superficial similarities. So how is this possible? baffled writers and pundits have asked. How can a creature that is 99 per cent genetically identical to ourselves be coated in thick pelts of hair, swing from the trees and live on a diet of raw termites and fruit?

Simple, says Ridley. It is just a matter of order, for just like words, genes come in an infinite variety of patterns. Change their sequence a little bit and you can turn Pan troglodytes into Homo sapiens, just as Dickens can be transformed into Salinger. There is no need to invent genes, he says, just as there is no need to invent words to write an original novel. 'All you need to do is switch the same ones on and off in different patterns.'

This switching is performed by tiny stretches of DNA called promoters. Our bodies have hundreds of these and they flick different genes into action, causing each to begin production of a particular protein. (Think of proteins as the building blocks of our bodies.) Then, after a while, a promoter will turn a gene off again.

Thus, the same genes making the same proteins create two different beings because each reads from a different biological score. 'A chimp has a different head from a human being... because it grows the jaws for longer and the cranium for a shorter time than does the human being,' observes Ridley. 'The difference is all timing.'

In short, we are prisoners not of our genes but of our promoters, some of which are influenced by other promoter-triggered genes, while others, crucially, are affected by our environments. This latter process, therefore, explains how nurture has such a profound impact on the individual, because it influences living organisms via their genes. Nature and nurture are not mutually antagonistic forces, the author observes, but harmonious collaborators which are joined by DNA promoters to awesomely inventive ends, resulting in species as varied as yeast and blue whales, and even within our own species, the wondrous variety of individuals that make up Homo sapiens, from the Scandinavian to the Inuit.

'The more you discover genes that influence behaviour, the more you find that they work through nurture, and the more you find that animals learn, the more you discover that learning works though genes,' says Ridley. It is bravura stuff, particularly as Ridley is known as a fairly committed adherent to the cause of inherited influences. Nevertheless, he has produced a balanced, entertaining gallop through the world of environmental influences and genetic impulses.

Genes are not our hard-wired masters, he concludes, but 'the epitome of sensitivity, the means by which creatures can be flexible, the very servants of experience'.



Which takes us, logically, to the chimpanzee. Scientists have recently shown these animals share all but a handful of the 30,000 genes that combine to create a human being. Yet the two species are not alike, despite superficial similarities. So how is this possible? baffled writers and pundits have asked. How can a creature that is 99 per cent genetically identical to ourselves be coated in thick pelts of hair, swing from the trees and live on a diet of raw termites and fruit?

Simple, says Ridley. It is just a matter of order, for just like words, genes come in an infinite variety of patterns. Change their sequence a little bit and you can turn Pan troglodytes into Homo sapiens, just as Dickens can be transformed into Salinger. There is no need to invent genes, he says, just as there is no need to invent words to write an original novel. 'All you need to do is switch the same ones on and off in different patterns.'

This switching is performed by tiny stretches of DNA called promoters. Our bodies have hundreds of these and they flick different genes into action, causing each to begin production of a particular protein. (Think of proteins as the building blocks of our bodies.) Then, after a while, a promoter will turn a gene off again.

Thus, the same genes making the same proteins create two different beings because each reads from a different biological score. 'A chimp has a different head from a human being... because it grows the jaws for longer and the cranium for a shorter time than does the human being,' observes Ridley. 'The difference is all timing.'

In short, we are prisoners not of our genes but of our promoters, some of which are influenced by other promoter-triggered genes, while others, crucially, are affected by our environments. This latter process, therefore, explains how nurture has such a profound impact on the individual, because it influences living organisms via their genes. Nature and nurture are not mutually antagonistic forces, the author observes, but harmonious collaborators which are joined by DNA promoters to awesomely inventive ends, resulting in species as varied as yeast and blue whales, and even within our own species, the wondrous variety of individuals that make up Homo sapiens, from the Scandinavian to the Inuit.

'The more you discover genes that influence behaviour, the more you find that they work through nurture, and the more you find that animals learn, the more you discover that learning works though genes,' says Ridley. It is bravura stuff, particularly as Ridley is known as a fairly committed adherent to the cause of inherited influences. Nevertheless, he has produced a balanced, entertaining gallop through the world of environmental influences and genetic impulses.

Genes are not our hard-wired masters, he concludes, but 'the epitome of sensitivity, the means by which creatures can be flexible, the very servants of experience'.

But here's the real cutting edge of the research where the interplay of genes and environment is most critical in terms of family systems and their impact upon the child's growth, both I.Q. and E.Q. (I cited Meaney in the original post for this thread):

http://www.douglasrecherche.qc...tails.asp?id=101&l=e

And the fuller description of Meaney's research, much of which has been replicated and reproduced by other researchers:
_____________________________________________

More on the research work of Michael Meaney, PhD

A Mother�s Touch: Crucial in Child Development

Give Michael Meaney, PhD, of the Douglas Hospital Research Centre five years and he may be able to tell us how to better prepare our children for some of the future challenges they may face. The studies he has conducted on laboratory rats to date already have revealed much in this respect. Specifically, they have shown that a mother�s touch may not only be a comforting and pleasant experience for her child, but may also be a means by which genes involved in shaping our response to stress get turned on or off.

Michael Meaney explains that the possible rat equivalent to a human mother�s touch is licking. Much like in humans, different �parenting styles� exist among rats, such that some rat mothers lick their pups more than others. He has shown that, when exposed to stress, the offspring of high-licking mothers produce lower levels of stress hormones, including glucocorticoids.

The stress hormones are released to help the body deal with a threat or a stressor. In the short-term, this rise in glucocorticoids is adaptive; however, repeated or long-term use of this stress-response system can have detrimental effects and has been linked to heart disease, diabetes, immune dysfunctions, and mental illness. Moreover, while glucocorticoids help to ensure the adequate function of a brain structure (called the hippocampus), which is involved in learning and memory, excess glucocorticoids have been linked to damage of the hippocampus and to poor memory. Thus, there are clear advantages in having a high-licking mother. Under certain conditions, the pups reared by high-licking mothers are calmer during stress, and show a greater capacity to learn, relative to pups reared by low-licking mothers.

It appears that the stimulation provided by licking produces changes in the function of genes in the pups� brains. While a pup is in the womb, genes that help guide the normal development of the brain and body are turned on and off through a variety of processes. When a rat mother licks her pups, she turns on the gene involved in reducing the amount of glucocorticoids they will release in the face of stress.

From Rats to Humans
How does this translate to humans? Over the next five years, Michael Meaney and his colleagues from across the country will examine whether aspects of parental care, such as touch, have the same effects on the DNA of human babies. This $4 million study, called the MAVAN project (Maternal Adversity Vulnerability and Neurodevelopment) and supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, should provide invaluable data on the effects of parental care on child development.

There are, of course, differences in parental care in humans. Mothers with severe depression for instance, can have difficulties bonding with their children, and tend to touch and caress their babies less than others. Michael Meaney and his group will therefore follow a group of depressed mothers throughout pregnancy and, for the next four years, will compare them to a control group of mothers without depression.

Although all of the depressed women will be offered treatment, past research indicates that a third of them may not respond. Interestingly, Michael Meaney has shown that, when a rat mother is exposed to stress during pregnancy, she tends to lick her pups less. In humans, being depressed during pregnancy can be considered a form of stress, which has been shown to render children more vulnerable to certain health and developmental problems. Thus, when the babies are born, they will be tested for 22 genes known to be related to aggressive or antisocial behaviour, and to learning difficulties such as Attention Deficit Disorder. Michael Meaney and his group will also follow the cognitive and social development of these children for five years. Given the link between glucocorticoids, brain development, and memory, they will also perform brain scans and measure stress hormones levels throughout the study.

If the patterns observed in humans are comparable to data obtained in rats, Michael Meaney predicts that the children of mothers who are less engaged with their children may be predisposed to problems such as Attention Deficit Disorder. He cautions however, that these findings may not be as deterministic as they appear on the surface. Recent evidence from his laboratory suggests that these effects are reversible. If a pup from a low-licking mother is �adopted� by a high-licking mother, it shows normal development. This reversal can even occur if the pup is past puberty. Placing the pup into an enriched environment reverses the effects of early maternal care on stress responses and learning.

Moreover, Michael Meaney explains that having a higher response to stress is not always a bad thing. The environment one is raised in plays a very important role. One study, conducted in Montreal, in poor neighbourhoods with high crime rates, showed that boys who don�t get into trouble actually have higher cortisol levels than boys who join gangs and engage in criminal activity. He argues that their higher stress levels may make them more fearful and less likely to get into trouble.

Through this large countrywide effort, Michael Meaney and his colleagues may provide parents with insight into how they can help their children adapt to their environment and better prepare them to deal with stress. Moreover, the MAVAN project may potentially show HOW the complex interplay between our genes and the environment takes place.

But the real ghost buster that would probably give Pinker some heart burn is what Meaney has gone on to find about the preservation of environmental influences on gene expression across generations:

http://arjournals.annualreview...urev.neuro.24.1.1161

This latter process, therefore, explains how nurture has such a profound impact on the individual, because it influences living organisms via their genes.

Interesting, WC, and thanks for all the info and links. I'll plow through some of them tonight. But in the meantime, if, as it seems, nurture has such a profound impact, why do we not morph, say, into creatures (such as a werewolf) if our environment prompts such a thing? Why do we see only miniscule changes through epigenetics? Or is this the case? Are there mostly small changes or are the changes that occur simply easy to not notice? Just looking for an overall feeling for this whole epigenetics business.

Keep reading these links, Brad, and you'll see some of the phenotype changes you are wondering about, such as the description toward the end of one article where a gene found in all cell-types initiates colon cancer because of the toxic environment unique to that organ system.

As for werewolves, I've had a few girlfriends that . . . .


Anyway, another example would be the influence on the fetus via the mother's diet, which is known to be a causal factor in the development of various diseases, such as heart disease and diabetes.

But what you point to may, in fact, not be under the control of merely genes or environment, but what Rupert Sheldrake call "morphogenetic fields." Here's an interview with Sheldrake describing some of his experiments:

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC12/Sheldrak.htm

WC, I'll continue doing my homework. Questions I'll keep in mind:

Is the epigenetic stuff mostly about diseases?
Is it about small change with big effects only early in life?
Is the paradigm of genetics and DNA changing from a computer program to a more sophisticated and flexible computer program or something else?
Will WC lobby to add epigentics to the blood screening process when getting a marriage license?

Regarding your above points:

1) Meaney's research showing both stress and nurturing maternal effects across generations indicates epigenetic pathways for human development, not just disease processes;

2) Meaney and others show these varied effects across the time-span of human development, e.g., neural plasticity not just in terms of synaptic change, but neurogenesis in the adult brain, something thought to be a fiction until about ten years ago;

3) The computer program metaphor is still popular, but one that requires some fairly futuristic models, since indeterminancy is hard to plot with a machine, especially when one cannot exactly predict the environmental signalling impacting the organism;

4) Any vestige of hope remaining for me re: matrimony would be dashed entirely with an epigenetic evaluation ("Sir, I'm sorry, but our results show you weren't licked enough as a pup.")